Episode 48: SPOTLIGHT - OSPE's EDIA Task Force

At OSPE, advocacy is our cornerstone, driving us to create change and progress within the engineering community. To fulfill this commitment, we've established five task forces, each focused on conducting research and providing policy recommendations in areas critical to engineers in Ontario.

In part four of our series, we spotlight the work being done by OSPE's Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Accessibility Task Force. Host Jerome James, P.Eng. speaks with task force co-chairs Michelle Liu, P.Eng. and Shivani Nathu, P.Eng. about the task force's objectives, aimed at fostering a more inclusive and diverse environment for engineers in Ontario.

Join us as we learn about OSPE's ongoing efforts to create meaningful change within the engineering profession in Ontario. 

Transcript

ENGINEERING THE FUTURE PODCAST
 Episode 48: Spotlight – OSPE’s EDIA Task Force

JEROME JAMES:   00:00.44 - 00:23.58

This episode of Engineering the Future has been brought to you by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization. NWMO is the national organization responsible for safely managing Canada's used nuclear fuel, a critical component of Canada's long-term sustainable energy strategy. Want to learn more about NWMO's plans for the future? Visit nwmo.ca.

FEMALE NARRATOR:   00:29.21 - 00:42.96

This podcast is brought to you by OSPE, the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, the advocacy body for professional engineers in the engineering community in Ontario.

JEROME JAMES:   00:42.96 - 01:34.45

Welcome to Engineering the Future, a podcast brought to you by the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers. I am your host, Jerome James. At OSPE, advocacy is our cornerstone, driving us to create change and progress within the engineering community. To fulfill this commitment, we've established five task forces, each focused on conducting research and providing policy recommendations in areas critical to engineers in Ontario. With us today to explore the ongoing initiatives of OSPE's Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Task Force are co-chairs Michelle Liu, professional engineer, lawyer, and policy consultant, and Shivani Nathu, a professional engineer and planner at the IESO. Michelle, Shivani, welcome to Engineering the Future.

MICHELLE LIU:   01:34.45 - 01:37.86

Thank you for having us. 

Thanks, Jerome. Thanks to be here.

JEROME JAMES:   01:37.86 - 01:49.77

Absolutely. Let's jump right into it. Can you provide an overview, Michelle, of OSPE's EDIA task force and its objectives?

MICHELLE LIU:   01:50.36 - 03:16.91

Right. Yeah. Thanks, Jerome. And so, you know, the focus of this task force, I think, is really on integrating equity, diversity, inclusion and accessibility principles, you know, both internally at OSPE and externally across the engineering discipline. So maybe just to touch on some of the internal and external aspects. Internally, the task force, you know, aims to collaborate with various OSPE staff to inform the creation of policies, that aim to address different intersectional challenges, for example, enhance diversity in leadership, and really just employ this data-driven approach for different continuous improvement approaches, along other things there. Externally, the task force really aims to embed EDIA throughout an engineer's career life cycle, as we say. You know, launch targeted initiatives, for example, for underrepresented groups, you know, racialized, gender nonconforming and so on. And just really to strengthen that community and industry partnership piece as well. And the task force, I think also really, really works to support other projects beyond the external internal binary that aim to raise EDI awareness overall, and just to foster the culture of inclusion and respect within our profession and community.

JEROME JAMES:   03:17.84 - 03:27.38

Excellent. And Shivani, what motivated you to take on a role such as co-chairing this task force?

SHIVANI NATHU:   03:27.38 - 04:57.29

So I think for me, a lot of my experiences, but also those of friends around me. I had some mental health challenges when I was in university and, you know, also as a woman of color going through engineering, I found it tough at times, you know, facing different pieces and the prejudice that I faced. And so I really took on this role because I wanted to see if I could make things a little bit better for folks like me or just underrepresented groups in general. But also because I really think that engineers are kind of at the core of our society. You know, we talked about all the biggest challenges that we're facing. You and I both work in the energy sector, and we know we have a huge challenge there, which impacts everywhere else. And if we don't have a diverse set of people building our society, then our society is always going to be flawed and not welcoming of everyone else. So I think it's really important that we work to try and make the engineering profession as inclusive and diverse and accessible as we can and equitable as well, because the profession then goes on to impact how society itself behaves and acts. And I think if we can address it at the root, only good things will follow.

JEROME JAMES:   04:57.29 - 05:03.64

Excellent. How about you, Michelle? What motivated you to take on a leadership role within this task force?

MICHELLE LIU:   05:04.66 - 07:32.69

Yeah, so although I've sort of stepped away from the role now, I had the pleasure of serving as co-chair alongside Shivani last year, and my motivation for having signed on to the task force and to become co-chair, similar to Shivani, it's really rooted in my experiences of whether you want to talk about racism, homophobia. So I'm queer, I'm non-binary. You can't see me, but I'm very non-binary presenting. And so my experiences in my identities throughout my engineering education, my career and even now when I'm in engineering spaces as whether a speaker or policy consultant or even as a lawyer, I still sort of continue to face a lot of these from microaggression to or overt violence. So I'm really driven, I think, to use that lived experience and my newly acquired, relatively newly acquired subject matter knowledge in law and human rights and equality to really influence individuals in engineering, organizations within the engineering community, and just our sort of system overall, to think more about social justice and to be more oriented, and to consider social justice as a core. Social justice, broadly speaking, including equity, diversity, inclusion and accessibility, of course, but to think about these principles as part of engineering, not aside or not beneath or in addition to, but really as core engineering. And I think, as I said, my engineering and law backgrounds combined, I think really puts me in a relatively privileged position that I think really inspires me to give back and to come back to engineering where I experienced a lot of these things and to bring to light some of these mechanisms of discrimination, of oppression, that do exist in engineering, as much as we want to think that we're this really ethical and objective and unbiased discipline, that's not the case. And so just to come back and to shed light on these things and to support the creation of a more equitable profession, more equitable policies, such that folks like Shivani and I who come after us can have better experiences and to stay and to thrive in this discipline.

JEROME JAMES:   07:33.72 - 08:33.82

Well said. You guys are covering all different ground already in your introductions. Let's get right into it. Maybe we'll parse some of these things out from the equity, diversity, and inclusion in engineering perspective. I know that you've mentioned from your own lived experience is why you're part of this organization. Can you explain why it's inherently important for these discussions to happen within the engineering profession on a whole or like more broadly? Is it a problem? Like what, how are people dealing with these these ideas, whether that be at work or on campuses, like, what is the lived experience of people currently today? And why is it important to prioritize EDIA right now? Shivani, why don't you start us off?

SHIVANI NATHU:   08:33.82 - 11:12.96

Sure. I think lived experience wise, so I went I graduated from university, or I started at university 10 years ago now, which seems weird to say out loud. But I remember in my first year coding class, we had midterms, and I finished my midterm early, after like 45 minutes, and we had an hour and a half to write it. So I sat there for like, I had two questions that I didn't know the answer to. So I sat there for the rest of it, just thinking about those in case the answer came to me. When I was talking to the guy who was sitting next to me, and he was like, Oh, like, I saw you'd finished 45 minutes early. But, um, and I thought, either she really knows her stuff, and she's really good at coding, or she gave up because it's too hard. And I figured it was a second because girls can't code. And I was like, Okay, um, I got a 98 on my midterm, and I ended up doing better than him. But it was kind of like the first thing that I had experienced in my first year of engineering and just be like, Oh, yeah, people really think this way and are so over it and blatant about it. And I think you know, I'm very fortunate now to work in a workplace where my ideas are respected and people listen to me and I don't face a lot of this at work, but it always gets me, you know, when I go into conferences and we're talking about transmission planning, 50 people in the room, two of them are women, and I think It's those types of experiences that force people, not force people, but people choose to leave the profession because they have these types of experiences, right? And I think as to why it's important and kind of what it leads to, you know, there's that, what I mentioned earlier about how everyone who's designing something looks a certain way or thinks a certain way, your design is going to be biased. And that's going to have harmful implications because it's not only those people who are using the system, it's everyone else. But I think another consequence of it, and I think one of the big reasons that engineering needs to focus on fixing this problem is because you're driving people away from the field. And we are talking every engineering conference, it comes up that we're facing a labor crisis. We don't have enough people to be engineers. We need more people to go into engineering. And I'm like, well, If you treat them well, then they'll stay in the profession. But I don't blame anyone who, you know, faces this type of stuff at work. And they're like, I'm going to leave because it's not good for me to be in this space.

JEROME JAMES:   11:12.96 - 11:13.70

Absolutely.

SHIVANI NATHU:   11:13.70 - 11:30.08

And that leads to us not having enough engineers. So we want to face these problems. We need to stop driving people away because we don't have that luxury. You know, we need as many engineers as we can get. We need as much help as we can get. And then also it leads to better solutions.

JEROME JAMES:   11:31.56 - 11:43.57

Okay. And what are, what are some of the solutions? Uh, Michelle, how would, how do we start to address some of the issues that Shivani just raised?

MICHELLE LIU:   11:45.29 - 14:52.40

Yeah, I think some of the significant barriers to achieving not just diversity, but also you bring people in, you have diversity, but we often have this revolving door phenomenon, as we call it. People come in and then they leave. In the construction industry as an engineer, and so very similar experiences ranging from people asking where I'm from to not having a washroom and homophobic comments on site, all of these things that compound over time to result in people leaving through that revolving door phenomenon. That's sort of one of the significant barriers is this exclusionary culture at all levels, right? Not just from people on site, it's not the engineers, it's the other workers or the other people. It's always somebody else, right? There's often this perception that it's not the engineers who are perpetuating this culture, it's always somebody else. We always like to sort of externalize the problem when in fact we know that this culture comes from within. It begins at orientation where we're told that we're the best and the smartest and we rule the world. This chant that engineers rule the world, we're all familiar with that chant. And so that still continues on today, right? And so think about the types of mentalities that embeds in those who are already privileged, already have dominant identities, and now they're told they're the smartest, the best. And so we can think about how that goes on to impact the culture and this engineering community that we're all in. And that's exacerbated by societal and other systemic inequities. And I think these challenges are obviously predominantly not the fault of equity-seeking groups, but are instead rooted in actions and inactions of individuals holding those dominant identities. So we often in engineering like to talk about imposter syndrome, for example, and that's sort of, in a way, faulting the equity-seeking people, right? Oh, like, you know, Shivani, you couldn't get through because you weren't confident in yourself. You have imposter syndrome. It's going back to fault the individuals who are equity-seeking as opposed to pointing to the system, right, to the others who are perpetuating these ideas. And so, highlighting that For example, not a lot of women are in engineering. That's not because women don't want to come or not because women aren't good enough. It's because there's this exclusionary, unwelcoming, hostile, and violent environment. Biases in hiring, promotions, and other daily interactions in the workplace all contribute to this environment where underrepresented groups don't feel included. They feel marginalized. Like, it's easier to go somewhere else, right? So I think that's sort of part of that barrier. I think identifying those barriers clearly, I think is one of the first steps to finding solutions. Again, so focusing on the system and the culture, not the individuals who are equity seeking. It's not their fault for leaving.

JEROME JAMES:   14:52.40 - 14:55.62

You don't want to blame the victim in those situations.

MICHELLE LIU:   14:55.62 - 14:55.96

That's right.

JEROME JAMES:   14:56.77 - 15:13.52

I just want to switch gears a little bit, um, and focus on the task force initiatives themselves. Can you discuss, uh, Shivani a little bit of, uh, the key initiatives and projects that the EDIA task force, uh, is currently working on?

SHIVANI NATHU:   15:13.52 - 16:52.13

Yeah. Um, so we have a couple of things on the go, um, right now, kind of addressing those different perspectives that Michelle was mentioning earlier, you know, the internal versus the external. So internally, one of the things we're working on is communications guidelines. just to say, you know, how can we as OSPE make sure that everything that we're putting out is inclusive, making sure that our documents are accessible, those types of things. And then externally, we have this year is the 35th anniversary of the Montreal Massacre. So we're working together to put some stuff together to kind of mark that occasion, because it is a really big anniversary. And it's an event that I think a lot of younger engineers don't necessarily know about, but I think it's something that it's really important for us as an engineering community to mark. And we're also have a couple of folks working on improving the experience for internationally trained graduates. So a lot of folks who are internationally trained come into Ontario and find it difficult to get jobs. And we had the legislation changing in terms of, you know, making it easier for them to become professional engineers and kind of supporting their experience through that, but there's still some disconnects there. You know, the policy has changed, but the process and the ease hasn't necessarily for them. So we have some members who are working with different immigration agencies and just trying to figure out where are the weak points, what's breaking down and how can we support internationally trained engineers so we can get more engineers working in their correct fields.

JEROME JAMES:   16:52.81 - 17:12.78

Excellent. And can you talk more about the collaborations the task force has with outside organizations? Do you have any partnerships with any engineering organizations or educational institutions to advance some of these initiatives?

SHIVANI NATHU:   17:12.78 - 18:07.75

Yeah, so I think it's really depends on the initiative and it also depends on kind of what's coming up. So sometimes we'll have folks reach out and say, you know, like, we're hoping to plan this event or we're hoping to do this. Can we go and support? So we also have our members, our task force kind of go and represent at different career fairs and conferences and that kind of stuff to get our word across and our message across rather. And then we're always looking to kind of develop more partnerships with folks. So White Ribbon is someone that has come up in the past that we're looking to see how we can do a partnership with them to mark the Montreal Massacre, as I mentioned. And then with the settlement agencies, there's a number of different ones which we're working on or working with at the moment to try and see how we can make it easier for them to find our engineers' work.

JEROME JAMES:   18:08.84 - 18:32.44

Excellent. I want to talk a bit about the promotion of EDIA within the task force, outside of the task force. What, what strategies are there to promote an increased representation of inclusion in underrepresented groups within engineering? I'm going to jump back to Michelle on that one.

MICHELLE LIU:   18:33.27 - 19:25.89

Yeah, I mean, that's the million dollar question is that, how do we change the culture? We're talking about culture change and systems change and that's always something that happens here incrementally. The demographics of engineers look completely different overnight. Again, part of that I think starts with recognition and change and a willingness to change, which I just don't think that as a profession and community as a whole, I just don't think that engineering is quite there yet. I think we're still at the early stages of identifying that there are issues. I do a lot of public speaking and consulting and I go to companies and do workshops and trainings and often my clients are engineering firms. And there is still a very strong resistance, especially at the high levels at management.

JEROME JAMES:   19:25.85 - 19:29.63

So there is. Sorry, I just want to jump on that.

MICHELLE LIU:   19:29.63 - 19:30.04

Totally.

JEROME JAMES:   19:30.84 - 19:56.94

So there is resistance at higher levels in organizations. So it's not just like, how do we become more sustainable? How do we become more green? We adopt a policy and then it's a top-down approach where it starts from the HR and how they search for candidates. It's more than that, you're saying.

MICHELLE LIU:   19:57.87 - 22:20.76

That's right. Yeah. I think there's a resistance across all levels, right? At the individual level, I think a lot of, especially the dominant folks, let's say the white men, there's still sort of this idea that they're like, well, I worked hard. I got here. Folks who can't get to where I am, well, that's because didn't work as hard, or they're not as smart. There's this meritocracy, I guess, at play to reinforce those who are in you know, and to reinforce their belief that, well, if they're in and others are not, that must be because others are not as smart, not working as hard. So there's that culture and that ideology that needs to shift a little bit for folks in engineering to understand, you know, for example, to even just have the grades in high school, if you're in grade 12 physics, to have to be able to take grade 12 physics and have the grades to, you know, apply and get into engineering, right? has a socioeconomic aspect to it, for example, among other things, right? So if you're in high school, if you're busy working three jobs and supporting your family versus if your family's very socioeconomically stable, perhaps hired you a really good tutor or sent you to additional tutoring for you to get that 95 in physics that you needed to get into U of T or Waterloo Engineering, So that differential, that equity consideration, that different starting point begins there. And then sharing who gets to spend 80 hours a week on their assignments and lab reports and who doesn't. Those sorts of questions I think are really important when we talk about who is in engineering and who isn't. I think there still needs to be more awareness as a step one of these issues. We're talking about equity overall. At the individual level, all the way up to the systemic level. Are engineering firms really engineering firms, as an example, are they really putting their money and actions where their mouth is? I often feel like I come in and I do a training and that feels often like a really good step, but it often also feels like it's not enough. It feels a little bit like lip service. One day a year they celebrate women, but what about the other 364 days? What are they really doing?

JEROME JAMES:   22:22.93 - 22:45.49

Before we get into that idea, I just wanted to follow up. Wouldn't you say that that's like an across the board issue, like with regards to systemic issues, not just affecting people that might aspire to be engineers, but doctors or lawyers or any other professional in society that this is something that we should be addressing across the board?

JEROME JAMES:   22:46.73 - 24:14.41

Absolutely, yeah. Access to education, access to professional disciplines, that's certainly a conversation that I think we need to have more often as a society and issues we need to examine. But I think what's perhaps unique about engineering is that between law, engineering, and medicine, engineering is the only undergraduate direct entry professional program, right? Law and medicine are both post-grad. I mean, you can technically enter without finishing your undergrad, but nonetheless, you have to have pursued a different degree. at the outset, and first degrees to law is often political science, sociology or gender studies, perhaps. These programs that don't have as high of a bar at the high school entry level. There are no prerequisites, for example, at the political science. There are no prerequisites to ... Well, there are, but there isn't a physics prerequisite to a life science program that's often a precursor to medicine. So I think at the outset, when folks are 16, 17, the bar is just that much lower at that point compared to engineering. Where if at 16 or 17, your family circumstances, for example, didn't allow you to do really well in school, didn't allow you to do really well in physics in particular, then you're not going to engineering. Or you go into your top choice engineering school. That's sort of one of the unique issues about engineering is that the barrier begins four years, at least, earlier than it does in other disciplines.

JEROME JAMES:   24:15.41 - 24:39.29

That's a very interesting thing to think about. I hadn't, I didn't think about it that way, that you're, you're funneling people away from engineering a lot earlier than other professions. Shivani, what are some policies or practices that, that we can advocate for to create a more inclusive environment for engineers and from diverse backgrounds?

SHIVANI NATHU:   24:39.29 - 25:58.64

I think one of the things that you mentioned Jerome is like, HR. And I think there's obviously the culture piece that needs to change, but there's also the policies that needs to change. And as engineers, we like our codes and standards. If we can look something up and be like, okay, how do I design this? What's the factor of safety? It's a lot easier. You don't have to convince people to use a factor of safety too. It's just there. It's outlined for you. You have to do it. So I think there's definitely a role to play in terms of policies and processes, because it just standardizes everything. Whether or not you agree with the doctor safety or two, you have to do the sector of safety or two, right? So I think policies, specific ones, you know, when you talk about hiring, making sure that you have a diverse set of candidates in your candidate pool, where you're putting out advertisements. So are you just putting them out on specific websites? Are you using like, different magazines? Or what is your network? What's your strategy? I think to Michelle's point about getting folks to come into engineering. That grade 12 physics is a struggle for a lot of folks. I went to an all girls school and a lot of my classmates did not take grade 12 physics because they just didn't like it enough. But that cut them out of engineering, right? So looking at how can we get alternate pathways into engineering.

JEROME JAMES:   25:58.64 - 26:37.57

Or the sound of a physics class just from the title alone, not the content. can turn people off of like, oh, this is not for me. Yeah. A previous podcast, one of our speakers, guest speakers, were talking about how in certain schools they've renamed the physics class to attract more women to the class. So that's that's a very interesting idea of how do we deal with these preconceived notions of who a class is for and change the script, change the narrative.

SHIVANI NATHU:   26:37.57 - 29:06.42

Yeah. I think who a class is for or even what an engineer is, right? Like last week I met someone and I was wearing like light pink trousers and a colorful shirt and the person thought I worked in healthcare because they were like, Oh, like your dress. So and I was like, No, I'm an engineer. I think a lot of people have this notion, especially high schoolers, like, you don't really know much when you're 16, 17, 18. And having to decide what you want to do for the rest of your life is like, scary. But I think exposing younger folks to engineers of different backgrounds, showing all the different things that engineers can do, we don't just build bridges, you know, we have roles in so many different aspects of society. I think that's kind of how you implement the high school stuff, also changing the prerequisites. So maybe physics is a thing, but people can take physics over the summer or something like that to kind of get their foot in the door. I know that some universities are exploring different entrance strategies for Indigenous folks who may not have had physics or have the same educational background. So I think there's at every point, there's kind of two things to look at. It's how are we getting people in? And then how are we ensuring that they stay in the retention? So the retention piece, you know, are you making sure that everyone's getting the same salary or same promotion? Is it objective? So instead of having performance reviews that are wishy-washy, is there a criteria that people know that they should keep in mind that they can work on so it's all standardized? I think also you know, having a really good and robust system for people to report if there's harassment. But I think also there's so much at stake in the workplace if you file an official complaint. And I think one of the challenges is like, if someone made that comment to me about coding, if that was in university, if that was in the workplace, it doesn't feel like it's big enough to make a formal complaint, you know, and put it on the record and something. But having a way to do like, how do we handle microaggressions or coming up with a policy for that? I don't know what that looks like. It's kind of the million dollar question, but I think it's really important that we we try and make things not necessarily as standardized as possible, but just have something there so that folks who are unsure of what to do can look at that for support and so that their experiences and complaints are not are taken seriously and are not kind of thrown out.

JEROME JAMES:   29:07.83 - 29:41.84

So there's microaggressions between colleagues, and then there's implicit bias and discrimination from the system, a systemic issue from like a top-down approach. How do we address those implicit biases, whether they occur in classroom or the workplace within the engineering profession? I'll start with Shivani and then you can answer the question as well, Michelle.

SHIVANI NATHU:   29:41.84 - 31:26.17 

I think one of the big things is just having training. So that goes back to Michelle's point around awareness, you know, just the implicit bias training. Most companies have rolled it out by now. And I think it's really important for folks to be aware of it. And I think ultimately, one of the other points that we need to bring back into the workforce is just a reminder of respect. You know, like there's a certain level of respect that you owe your colleagues. And I think a lot of times these things feel very political and people tend to get defensive and don't want to do things. But, you know, if you have a colleague that prefers to go by their middle name, most people will just call them their middle name out of respect for this person because they're doing what they would like, right? And so it doesn't need to become different just because it's a trans colleague as opposed to a white man who prefers to go by his middle name, right? And I think if we put the focus more on treating our colleagues or classmates, whoever they may be, as like, this is the level of professionalism you need to have in a workplace. You need to treat your colleagues with respect. There are policies saying that you can't disrespect your colleagues for any reason, whether that's racism or just, you know, you can't yell at your coworkers, like things like that. I think it's really important to just set the bar at a kind of higher level. And whether it's implicit bias that's causing this behavior or it's something else, I don't think that needs to matter. I think if we just make it, bring it up a level and just say, okay, we all work together. This is how we're going to behave regardless of how you think.

JEROME JAMES:   31:26.17 - 31:27.39

Excellent. Michelle?

MICHELLE LIU:   31:28.36 - 33:45.21

Yeah, I think I echo all those points, and maybe just to add a couple of things here. I think how do we address implicit bias and discrimination? I think firstly naming it, right? Calling it what it is. I think we often like to have more, as Shivani said, politically friendly words or words that won't get people to put up their defenses, but I think really just naming it, calling it discrimination, calling it and also implicit bias. I think also the word implicit, I feel like lightens the responsibility on the system and the perpetrator. I think often these biases are quite explicit, right? Like the fact that engineering historically, the fact that engineering is quite colonial, has always been dominated, set up. by white men and the fact that, of course, the system continues to benefit that same group of people. That's quite unsurprising, right? But I think that's something that's quite explicit. It's not subtle or hidden. It's not a specific type or types of people benefit from some of the things that go on in engineering. It's, I think, naming that discrimination, naming that inequity, naming it correctly, I think, again, goes back to the awareness and really pointing out the issue. I think that's one of the first steps. I think on the solution of policy, I think that's certainly really important, but I always hesitate as a policy consultant, I hesitate to recommend policy right off the bat as a solution because I feel like unless they're hiring a really robust team of policymakers who know what they're doing, to write that policy for the company, other than that, if I come in and do one training and now the HR people are like, okay, let's write a policy, I think that's quite risky. I think that policy risks being lip service, risks being more harmful than anything else. If it's going to start tokenizing racialized folks, for example. That's not really the direction we want to go in. I think policy, but good policy and policy that really is nuanced and considers the needs and interests of the equity-seeking people within the organization, that's really, really important.

JEROME JAMES:   33:46.38 - 34:01.07 

So you're saying these policy positions or, or protocols need to be developed internally and have like stakeholder buy-in and make sure that people feel included when these policies are created.

MICHELLE LIU:   34:01.90 - 35:07.46

Absolutely. Yeah. I think for policies like payroll, for example, that's something that accounting or different corporate entities in a siloed manner can create and that's usually fine. But I think when it comes to an EDI or equity policy, I think for the most part, when we look at engineering firm partners or principals, if they're the ones who are going to sit down around a table and create this equity policy, I don't imagine that it's not really going to serve the people that it intends to serve in the way that they want to. I think inviting those voices into the room and inviting the right people to share their perspectives. It's really a large process that needs to be carried out well and in a robust manner in order to come to a policy that I think is going to be effective. I think that's often the challenge around resources, around companies want something that's quick and easy, not something that is going to be like a six month working project that they're going to invest

JEROME JAMES:   35:08.40 - 35:16.86

For sure, for sure. Stakeholder buy-in is really important for the acceptance of a policy workplace-wide.

SHIVANI NATHU:   35:16.86 - 35:18.83

If I can just jump in as well.

JEROME JAMES:   35:18.83 - 35:19.09

For sure.

SHIVANI NATHU:   35:19.76 - 36:48.63

I think one other thing that often comes up a lot in workplaces is that whoever is from the underrepresented group, they also have to do a lot of unpaid emotional labor on top of their day job. So as Michelle mentioned, you know, we want to make sure that people are getting consulted and they're getting brought along in this policy process, but all of those folks have day jobs as well, right? And they're not, in most cases, they're not getting a layer workload because they are also reviewing the company's EDI policy and because they're also sitting on this task force and doing this committee and organizing this thing. So I think one of the other challenges is making sure that the emotional labor is not on top of the other work that they're doing, that it's balanced. So if you, if this person is going to sit on this committee, can you reduce their workload in the other aspects so that they have enough time for it? Did you ask if they want to get involved or have they been voluntold? Because sometimes it's like, okay, you're the only person on this group, so we need your opinion and we're going to tokenize you as Michelle said, but. Right, right. You may not want to get involved. You may just want to do your day job and that's all you want to do and that's fine. That's your prerogative, right? And so I think it's really important to not only talk to those with the alleged experience, but make sure that they want to provide their lived experience and then also get experts in because one person can't speak for the entire community that they represent.

FEMALE NARRATOR:   36:49.99 - 37:01.86

We hope you're enjoying this episode so far. At OSPE, we're here for you, making sure government, media, and the public are listening to the voice of engineers. You can learn more at OSPE.on.ca.

JEROME JAMES:   37:03.89 - 37:24.47

And that leads me to my next question is that what are the opportunities for your average engineer to contribute to the EDI efforts within an organization? Is there a role for them to play broadly? How, how can, how can white men contribute to, to a more equitable workplace?

MICHELLE LIU:   37:25.98 - 38:17.69

I think the word expert just came up in Shivani's comments, and I think that that piece is quite important, not for engineers necessarily all to go become EDI experts or to train as human rights lawyers as I have done, but really to respect that that is an expertise, right? Often we, as Shivani said, often it's something that somebody is doing off the side of their desk. Often it's a visibly equity-seeking person being volentoldwho's expertise might be structural engineering, but just because they look a certain way or have a certain lived experience doesn't necessarily mean that they are equipped to write policy for your organization or that they're equipped to give a training on how to eliminate gender bias on International Women's Day, for example. Just because I fixed my toilet once doesn't mean that I'm suddenly the go-to plumber in my office.

JEROME JAMES:   38:18.59 - 38:28.81 

But what about the individual that's not affected by EDI per se? How can they contribute to a more equitable work environment?

MICHELLE LIU:   38:29.73 - 39:45.85

Right, so that's kind of what I was getting at, was really recognizing that this is an expertise, that it's not just they're going to go to Shivani or I down the hallway because they think that we know more about EDI than they do, but really just go out and seek out that expertise. I'm not saying come hire me necessarily, but somebody has gone and done, in addition to perhaps their lived experience, they have gone and done some kind of formal training or have had extended exposure. Learning and living with communities, for example, and so on, but somebody who has that expertise and to bring them in and to welcome their perspectives. I think we tend to be quite closed off in engineering and we think that we need somebody in engineering to solve our own problems that I think becoming more multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary, I think is quite important. I think the opportunity I wanted to highlight here was just to really be open to the expertise of other fields and to bring those into engineering. And that's something that I'm trying to do through my PhD, is to really bring the sociolegal lenses to these engineering cultural problems. I think that sort of thing needs to happen more and more.

JEROME JAMES:   39:45.85 - 40:06.28

And Shivani, Uh, what, what kind of, um, tidbits would you give your average engineer when they are thinking about engaging in, in, in discussion? How do, how do we minimize these microaggressions that you were talking about before?

SHIVANI NATHU:   40:06.28 - 41:34.48

Yeah. So I think there's a lot of work. There's a lot of things that folks can do to change the culture that are very easy to implement. You know, some that come to mind are if you're in a meeting and someone says something, but no one's listening to. Reiterating the idea and you'd say, you know, Michelle said, blah, blah, blah. I think that's a great idea. Making sure that other people's voices can get heard, because I think it's acknowledging, you know, you have a lot of privilege. So what can you do with that privilege? And uplifting other people's work, whether that's in a meeting or with other colleagues that you may not necessarily have the chance to talk to. Sponsorship and mentorship are huge. So a lot of folks from underrepresented groups, because they don't see themselves in leadership roles or in management, you know, as you get higher up, people start to look more uniform. So really, seeing is there someone that you can mentor within your network? Is there someone that you think is a rising star or has some quality? And I think mentoring is one thing, you know, giving advice, but I think another really important piece is sponsoring them. So whether that's, you know, talking about that person in other conversations where they're not there or seeing if there's a role for them promotion down the line, because that's where a lot of underrepresented groups miss out is that their names are being in these conversations. And then I think... Right.

JEROME JAMES:   41:34.48 - 41:47.81

It's not good enough to just talk like, or, or acknowledge them, but the work and what's, what's that next step? How is that moving them forward in their career?

SHIVANI NATHU:   41:47.81 - 43:51.24

For sure. And I think there's a lot of unspoken rules as well, that you wouldn't necessarily know unless you're from a dominant class or whatever. And I think one of them is like, you know, going for coffee chats with people or like people bringing up your name in other conversations. I think there's a lot of things that members from underrepresented groups miss out on because they just don't know the intricacies of the workplace necessarily. So I think sponsoring, mentoring, I've had a director email me when I was a junior and be like, hey, let's get a coffee chat. And I was very confused because usually it happens the other way around. But that was their way of saying, OK, like supporting me and kind of opening my eyes to this this side of the world. So I think it's really about seeing how you use your privilege to support other people. One thing that's kind of undervalued is being that voice of reason sometimes. So if someone says something that's kind of off kilter, you can shut down the conversation or you can also just, you don't have to do it in the moment. You can say it like, let's say it's a meeting, someone says something that's like, not great after the meeting, pull that person aside and be like, Hey, you know, when you cut this person off, it wasn't great. Or when you said that, it doesn't need to be confrontational. And sometimes people take it better if it's someone they know well. And so just kind of recognizing, are there any behaviors that you're seeing in other people or yourself that you can correct? And then as Michelle said, also being open to the experiences of other people is really important, whether that's experts or lived experience. Because I know a lot of folks who kind of, it's easy to have your blinders up and not see what other folks are going through. But if someone does say, hey, this thing that you made me feel, said made me feel awkward or something like that, just kind of work through that defensiveness. It's hard, but just keep your eyes open and take in what they have to say.

JEROME JAMES:   43:52.39 - 44:28.32

And that can be hard sometimes. Yeah. It's a real, especially if you feel like your job's on the line or you don't know the situation's new and you just want to shut up and listen and, and go about your business to actually have that voice is, is, um, can be scary sometimes. Moving right along, we're into our final, uh, segment of our conversation today, future outlook. What are your hopes and dreams and goals for the EDIA task force in the coming years? Why don't you start us off, Michelle?

MICHELLE LIU:   44:28.32 - 47:03.38

Yeah, you know, I, I've sort of stepped away, as I said, from, from co-chairing the task force, but I know that, you know, the projects that Shivani and I had started this past year and that Shivani is leading the team to begin this year. I think they're, they're going to go, they're going to unfold. And I think things are going strong. And I think my hopes more generally for EDI and engineering really is I think for this momentum, I think that we're seeing a little bit to really continue it to build up. And I think task forces like EDIA at OSPE and different things that PEO is doing, Engineers Canada is doing, I think as much as no single initiative is going to make the change that we want to see collectively over time. Incrementally putting some of the things that Shivani had said into practice, some of the more high level ideas all the way down to the more specific practices like questioning your own assumptions, challenging different comments that come up, challenging stereotypes, educating yourself. That's a big one as well as for engineers to continue being willing to be open-minded and educate themselves on these topics, not to think that these things are non-technical or non-engineering. I think these things are really important in engineering, and so for engineers to want to learn and want to educate themselves on these topics. The very specific example that often comes up for me is different slurs that come up in engineering spaces, and they're just like, oh no, you can't say that. That's not okay, and that's actually what this means, and the person will seem really surprised. That kind of thing. First of all, not to have the confidence to say something that you don't know the meaning of. You're not sure? Maybe don't say it. You're on the side of just not, and also just continuing to learn and educate and keep up with the things that you may not feel is important in your engineering career, but to know that they are. And I think the other piece around that I would love to see more individuals, organizations move toward is really not just wanting to focus on solutions. I think I often get brought into organizations to say, hey, we need solutions to our EDI problems. And it's like, well, I, you know, I'm flattered that you think I have the solution, but I don't. Not alone. Right. and so I think to really understand that this is not like, you know.

JEROME JAMES:   47:03.38 - 47:07.33

There's no one answer to this problem.

MICHELLE LIU:   47:08.13 - 47:41.03 

Right. And it's not just like a lot of engineering problems. They're open-ended, wicked problems. I think there's a lot of considerations and there is no one single right answer that's going to get us to where we want to be overnight. I think it's really more about stating your commitment to be a part of developing incremental steps and changes. I think that will over time get us to where we want to and need to be, but just to not be so solution oriented as we like to be in engineering.

JEROME JAMES:   47:41.03 - 47:50.98

Excellent. Excellent. And Shivani, what are your hopes and goals for chairing the EDIA task force into the future?

SHIVANI NATHU:   47:50.98 - 49:13.48

One of the challenges the task force faces that not a lot of the other task force faces is that we're advocating to ourselves. You know, a lot of the other task forces, they have specific advocacy plans because they're trying to get the government to do something. Whereas with the EDIA task force, a lot of what we're changing is in the hands of other engineers, whether that's engineering firms or it's other engineers themselves. So I think that's always kind of the big question of like, how are we going to grapple with this? I think my hope is that we can kind of work together as a profession on this a little bit more. It does feel at times that it's, as Michelle said, like you come back to it on International Women's Day or you come back to it on December 6th, but the rest of the time, it just kind of falls off the wayside. So I think my hope would be that the EDI task force is able to work with the profession as a whole more and kind of influence in that kind of sphere and try and push the culture a little bit. And then I think a lot of the initiatives that we're working on are tackling small pieces, but I think my hope would be that we're able to address the underlying kind of problems and situations, but it's a hefty goal.

JEROME JAMES:   49:13.48 - 49:21.11

Absolutely. Everything that you guys are doing are lofty goals, but important. And I really appreciate you guys being here today.

MICHELLE LIU:   49:22.14 - 49:47.31

Yeah, having a great discussion. And I just want to thank Shivani for all the work that she's done on this task force over the last year together. And I'm really grateful that she's able to carry it forward as I sort of phase out. And I think the task force is in really, really good hands with Shivani at its head. So thank you, Shivani, for doing that and for being here.

SHIVANI NATHU:   49:47.31 - 49:50.77

Thank you. Thank you for all of your work and we will miss you.

JEROME JAMES:   49:52.29 - 50:08.92

Well, Michelle, Shivani, thank you for sharing your expertise today. You've really highlighted how making engineering more inclusive, diverse, and equitable is not just important, it's essential for the future of the profession. Thanks again for joining us.

MICHELLE LIU:   50:08.92 - 50:12.06

Thanks, Jerome, and thanks, OSPE, for having us. Thank you.

JEROME JAMES:   50:13.59 - 50:34.42

And as always, thank you to our audience. We really appreciate your ongoing support. And whether you're listening to us on YouTube or your favorite podcast app, don't forget to subscribe and leave a review. We love hearing from you. And that's it for this episode. I'm your host, Jerome James. You've been listening to Engineering the Future, and we'll see you next time.

FEMALE NARRATOR   50:39.48 - 50:47.86

From all of us at OSPE, the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, thanks for listening. Please be sure to subscribe so you don't miss an episode.